Chamber and committees

When somebody applies to purchase the airport, you would do a report, which would include the runway report from 2019. Is that correct?

So, you would not include a runway report as part of the purchase process.

The wind farm operators to whom I have spoken absolutely accept that it is their responsibility to mitigate any impact on the airport, but the issue on which I did not get an answer from the airport, although I asked several times, was the idea that any money that comes in from a wind farm operator must be demonstrable and must be used to mitigate any impact on the radar. I got no answer to that, so I ask you, cabinet secretary, whether that is your understanding, and what you will do to ensure that the money that is raised from wind farm operators is used for the purpose of mitigating the impact.

I will again ask you a simple question: are the revenues from the wind farms being ring-fenced for mitigation and not for any other measures?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and Mr Cook.

I have had a big interest in Prestwick airport all my life, and I think that it is a phenomenal asset and has huge potential for the area. From my line of questioning earlier this morning, you will know that I am concerned about the relationship with wind farm operators, specifically around the public inquiry report that was recently published. I know that there are on-going public inquiries, which we cannot discuss, but it is about the approach to the mitigation of issues in relation to building wind farms around the airport and the required radar upgrade, specifically to the Terma radar. I intimated that I spoke to NATS last week, to look at what the actual requirement is, and I also spoke to some of the wind farm operators.

To cut to the chase, as was accepted by the previous panel, on-going mitigation payments from wind farms are now being seen as an income stream. The inquiry report says that

“there is no basis to require ongoing compensatory payments”;

that the way in which those are calculated by the airport—by a charge per megawatt—is “not appropriate”; and, finally, that the way in which non-disclosure agreements are used to prevent some of those arrangements from being made public goes against similar agreements between commercial parties and wind farm developers.

How aware of that are you? How much does it concern you? Thankfully, the airport is in profit but, if public inquiries continue to find in such a way—that payment should not be an income stream, because it is supposed to be specifically for mitigation of the impact on radar—that would impact on the profitability of the airport. How aware of that are you?

Good morning, gentlemen. I declare a lifelong interest in Prestwick airport from the start, given that I used to live in Monkton and I joined the crowds in the football field across from my house to watch the inaugural flight of Concorde in 1969—that is how old I am.

I want to use my time to look at the airport’s income streams beyond flight operation; in particular I am interested in agreements with wind farm developers for mitigation payments. You will be aware of the findings of the reports on Clauchrie and Sanquhar. Having read the reports, it seems that the airport’s approach to negotiating mitigation settlements with wind farms has been challenged in several recent planning inquiries for such developments. From comments made by wind farm developers and reporters, it is reasonable to say that your approach is more aggressive than the norm. In particular, you have sought to receive on-going payments beyond an initial lump sum—you have sought to receive payments based on the number of megawatts generated. Most worryingly, you have taken an approach that uses non-disclosure agreements to conceal the value of payments and prevent public scrutiny. I am taking that straight from the report. Do you feel that that is an accurate description of the approach that you have taken to wind farms?

Anna, would you like to add anything?

The focus of your answer was very much on penalising those who do not comply, but there is another side to that coin. Should we not be encouraging people to comply? Instead of just a stick, do we not need a stick and a carrot? How do we encourage rather than penalise? I think that that is always a better approach to take, if you can.

My questions are for Jocelyn Blériot and Anna Larsson. At the moment, there is a lot of focus in Scotland on single-use items, such as vapes, and we are also looking at the disposal of unsold goods. The bill would give the Scottish Government powers to tackle those issues, but are there any international examples that we should be focusing on and which we could emulate to help us develop more successful legislation? I would ask that, when you answer, you comment, please, on how we can engage with business, as it is so important that we take business with us and ensure that there is no uncertainty about how to do business.

I put that question to Jocelyn first.

It was about charges for single-use products and whether we should adopt that idea.